Stamper v. Central Kentucky Lumber, Min. & Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1887
• Citation: 4 S.W. 330
• Parties: STAMPER v. CENTRAL KENTUCKY LUMBER, MIN. & MANUF'G CO., and others.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

4 S.W. 330

STAMPER v. CENTRAL KENTUCKY LUMBER, MIN. & MANUF'G CO., and others.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 19, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Clark county.

John L Scott, for appellant.

W. M Beckner and C. H. Stoll, for appellees.

PRYOR C.J.

The appellees Stuart and others purchased of the appellant Stamper, a large tract of land in the county of Perry, for which they paid him the sum of $5,000, the tract supposed to contain several thousand acres more land than was found to be in the boundary when the survey was made. A deed was made by Stamper, and his vendees placed in possession. Stuart, after this, sold the same land to his co-appellee, the Central Kentucky Lumber & Mining Company, for $7,500, and by the terms of the sale a survey was accordingly made, and, there being a deficit of several thousand acres, this action was brought by the appellee to recover its purchase money by reason of the deficit, and an attachment obtained against Stuart and Stamper on the ground that they had not sufficient property to satisfy the demand, and its claim would be endangered by delay. Stuart was served with process in the county where the action was instituted, and Stamper with process in Letcher county, where he lived, and the attachment, levied on his land. Stuart answered admitting the grounds of the attachment, or they were conceded to be true on an agreed state of facts, and Stamper, the appellant failing to answer, a judgment by default was rendered against him, and his land in Letcher sold to satisfy the demand of the lumber and mining company against Stuart. The appellant, Stamper, brings the case here, insisting that the Clark circuit court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment against him, because it was in fact an action affecting land, and therefore local. The action to recover for the deficit was a transitory action, and could have been instituted in any county where the defendant was served with a summons, and therefore the Clark circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the complaint of the lumber and mining company against Stuart, as he was served in the county where the suit was brought, but as to Stamper the facts present a different state of case. The conveyance by Stamper to Stuart had been accepted, and was entirely independent of the transaction between Stuart and the lumber and mining company. The sale to the company by Stuart vested in the former no right of action as...